I can see what you mean but part of me wonders if we should the founders of our main religions in so good a glow if they were attempting to found it now.

To be honest, if I was going to act against a religion as a government (and I would rather not ban a religion but let the police do their jobs), it would be if it had bad habits under successive leaders, defied the law or generally showed no willingness to better itself.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Dong Zhou wrote:It seems like religion fleecing people and ignoring the law is ok as long as one doesn't write it down as dogma? Just do it in practise but not in the texts?

Well don't forget that Scientology's texts are secret. The secrecy and other extreme measures, such as the silencing of apostates, are what make the Church of Scientology less akin to a religious group than a criminal organization.

Mithril! The dwarves tell no tales. But just as it was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled.

Rather then ban them for being secretive, why not force religions to open up their archives (and anyone else appropiate) and their texts by law? Including archives they hold abroad.

“You, are a rebellious son who abandoned his father. You are a cruel brigand who murdered his lord. How can Heaven and Earth put up with you for long? And unless you die soon, how can you face the sight of men?”

Sun Fin wrote:My worry would be that the precedent set to challenge the Church of Scientology could then be used against any religion the state disagrees with.

I feel this is a legitimate concern as well. I'd even argue that the challenge issued out to the church would reverberate among some radicals. The radicals would press hard for the government to look into other religious institutions and pressure them. The result, I fear, would be a messy affair. And although I dislike Scientology personally, I think they have certain rights to speech, privacy and religion so long as what they do isn't breaking the law. Anything they do breaking the law, of course, can and should be punished under the law.

I am referring to the difference between a mafia organization and a corrupted government, the difference between an organization which is there to profit through harm and another which is there for good reasons but whose power is misused by unjust people.

I feel that this is a matter of interpretation and not of actual empiricism though. Although motive is an important factor in determining guilt for a crime, it is difficult at times to ascertain. How can it be known whether an organization is set up for profiting off of others or not? How do you know whether or not Judaism, Catholicism and Islam were not set up partly for economic gain? I think you could make a good argument that they were set up for this purpose or quickly became suited for this purpose. The same is true of Buddhism and other religions as well. Forgive me for heresy, but I think institutional religion is frequently motivated partly by profit.

Jordan wrote:How can it be known whether an organization is set up for profiting off of others or not?

With the same methods used to discriminate fraudulent activities.

Sounds good in theory, but the problem is human beings screw up. There would always be the risk that a legitimate religion gets unjustly shut down.

The idea of shutting a religion down or outlawing or banning it, or whatever, is problematic too in that just because its member's (or leader's) practices are corrupt, does not always mean the religion itself is inherently corrupt. With scientology it's a bit more clear, but not everything is going to be so black and white.

Furthermore, you then have the issue of giving people the power to interfere with belief systems they do not share, which opens the door to potential bias, bribery, opinion and animosity-based decisions, and corruption. Get the wrong people in the right positions, and it is possible they could start causing damage to, or even eliminating the legal right to exist of, belief systems they simply don't like. The consequences of this go beyond people losing their right to practice their religion, too. There are many, many people who wouldn't stand for having their religion outlawed, and it is the way of human beings to react violently.

Really, it is a very tough situation. A line has to be drawn somewhere, but knowing where to draw it is extremely difficult.

“I think we delight to praise what we enjoy because the praise not merely expresses but completes the enjoyment; it is its appointed consummation." -- C.S. Lewis

Looked for a more reputable source but couldn't find one that has reported it - only forum threads on other sites.

Buzzfeed and CNN have declared war on 4chan. Seems suicidal to me and perhaps shows the arrogance of the major liberal news sites. Yes you are big enough to destroy any politician but 4chan are bigger then you realise and I suspect will win this battle.